IDITH J JACOB Vs. BOARD OF REVENUE AJMER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DESPITE the matter duly notified in the cause list for today none appeared on behalf of the petitioner. Request was made for short adjournment by Mr. D. K. Tewari on behalf of Mr. R. K. Goyal, learned counsel for the petitioner on the ground that Mr. Goyal is out of station and hence will not be available to assist the court. No prior intimation was received by this court as regards the absence of the counsel nor any intimation was given to Shri N. K. Maloo, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 5 and 6. It is the settled practice of the court that whenever a counsel is not available within station, he should inform not only the court that he would not be available on a particular date but should also obtain no objection from the other side by means of a letter explaining plausible ground for absence and only thereafter the matter may be adjourned. The adjournment should not be granted for the sake of adjournment particularly when the matter has been duly notified in the cause list. Hence, since the service is complete on all the respondents, this writ petition has been heard and is being decided finally by this order.

(2.) THE petitioner has challenged the sustainability of order dt. 9. 8. 1995 (Annexure-6) passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority, Kota as well as 23. 11. 1995 (Annexure-7) passed by Board of Revenue Ajmer.

(3.) AS a result of above discussion, I am of the considered view that the writ petition is mis-conceived and is not maintainable before this Court. The same is accordingly dismissed with costs which I assess as Rs. 1000/ -. .